Talk:Ralph Waldo Emerson/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

Untitled

Vandalism deleted, reversion to previous version. Dec. 19, 2006

Early in 1842, Emerson lost his first son, Waldo, to scarlet fever. Emerson wrote about his grief in two major works: the poem "Threnody", and the essay "Experience." In the same year, William James was born, and Emerson agreed to be his godfather. Is this a type? I thought individuals other than parents were asked to be godfathers. (J. Kubicki Jr. 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

The phrase "he was bald" in the sentence "His young wife, Ellen Louisa Tucker, he was bald, died in April 1831." seems incredibly awkward and nonessential. Is there a reason for this or is it just an error?

--65.68.190.251 12:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Obvious vandalism. Deleted.Lestrade 12:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I can't seem to find another source to back up this wiki's claim that Emerson's dad complained about his reading at three years old. Anyone?

Im not sure it's entirely true... A three year old who's supposed to read well? - Abhorsen123 15:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The only citations on the web that support this statement are exact quotes of the Wikipedia page, which suggests that it is either hearsay, or from an uncommon print source. 209.214.230.142 17:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

AlanH 14:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to say that he was ten at the time his father says that he can't read but the date is doesn't match (Makeing him three) a discrepancy that even if untrue doesn't make sense.63.224.245.74 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed "Emerson's most important prose works are:" to "Emerson's prose works include:". I think people might argue over which of his works are most important, so I chose something less POV. Also created a parallel "Emerson's poetry includes:" section for balance, with collections as well as individual poems.

Whysperseed 06:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Rearranged and named the external links.

Whysperseed 05:51, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

previous external link layout:


I don't think Emerson ever "drifted" between philosophical positions. I have made it "moved away from" because this fits the rest of the sentence, although I would like to re-write more radically.

Perhaps Emerson's having started with Unitarianism and moved on from there should be mentioned at this early point in the article. Fixlein (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

==External links== {{wikiquote}} {{Wikisource author}}

"If the red slayer think he slays,
Or if the slain think he is slain,
They know not well the subtle ways
I keep, and pass, and turn again....
Brahma (1856)

... Far or forgot to me is near, Shadow and sunlight are the same, Vanished gods to me appear, and one to me are shame and fame. They reckon ill, who leave me out; When me they fly, I am the wings; I am the doubter and the doubt, and I the hymn the Brahmin sings. THe strong gods pine for my abode, and pine in vain the sacred seven, but though, meek lover of the good, find me, and turn thy back on heaven.

Rest of Brahma (- Abhorsen123 15:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC))


I love man,not men

Hitch your wagon to the stars. Emerson

he who has all the toys does not always win

wealth does not always bring happiness and goodness, but just the reverse

not all of life's experiences are to be found in books

this is the age of the first person singular

I find it strange that "his young *wife* and one true love" is named Miss not (Mrs.) Elena Louisa Tucker. Any ideas?

Emerson in favor of expelling blacks from America?

I have heard quite a few people mention that Emerson, while in favor of abolition of slavery, wished that after being set free all blacks would be sent back to Africa. Now while this will not change much my opinion of him if it happens to be true I still wish to know if this is simply slander or not (those comments that I have heard were uttered by Southerners who still hate Yankees). --The Individual 20:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this was opinion not uncommon. But rather than "expelling", the idea would be to resettle blacks in their homeland. That's actually how the country of Liberia was founded:
Liberia, which means "Land of the Free", was founded by freed slaves from the United States under the supervision of the American Colonization Society in 1820. These Americo-Liberians established a settlement in Christopolis, soon renamed Monrovia, after U.S. president James Monroe, president of the Society, on 6 February, 1820. This group of 86 immigrants formed the nucleus of the settler population of what became known as the "Republic of Liberia". Lt. Robert F. Stockton of the U.S. Navy helped negotiate a treaty with the natives that led to the founding of new country.
The idea of resettling free slaves in Africa was nurtured by the American Colonization Society (ACS), an organization that governed the Commonwealth of Liberia until independence. Between 1817 and 1867, 13,000 freed slaves arrived with the help of the Society, leading to the formation of more settlements and culminating on 26 July 1847 in a declaration of independence of the Republic of Liberia. The style of government and constitution was said to be fashioned on that of the United States. The new Republic of Liberia adopted other American styles of life, including southern plantation-style houses with deep verandahs, and established thriving trade links with other West Africans. The Americo-Liberians distinguished themselves from the local people, characterized as 'natives,' by the universal appelation of "Mr."
--from History of Liberia --goethean ॐ 15:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Some abolitionists argued that slaves should return to Africa as free men, but Emerson never expressed that view.
His 1844 address, "Emancipation in the British West Indies," calls for a similar act of emacipation in the USA, with full citizenship: "...no race can be perfect whilst another race is degraded." See http://www.walden.org/Institute/thoreau/about2/E/Emerson_Ralph_Waldo/Writings/1844_Address/Emancipation.htm.
Considering Emerson's high intelligence, it is surprising that he would support such a mass deportation. I'm sure that if he could tour today's Detroit, Chicago, or Newark, he would surely change his mind.Lestrade 18:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Emerson's beliefs were of mass popularity; the time in which he lived structured his beliefs. It is in no way "surprising." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.157.230 (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that your labelling of Emerson is an interpretation. Wikipedia doesn't publish original interpretations of literary figures, although it can report on the interpretation of literary figures by scholars. Your text needs to be in the form of "According to x in y, Emerson was a nondualist..." — goethean ॐ 19:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That said, User:Hydriotaphia, what's wrong with the quotation from "The Oversoul"? — goethean ॐ 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry--I shouldn't have erased that. I don't want to get into an edit war with anybody. I'll replace the quote. Will that please everybody? Hydriotaphia 19:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry to have erased the quote, and it's now back in. I've replaced "finest" with "clearest," since "finest" is a necessarily controversial value judgment. I hope we'll be able to avoid mediation now. Hydriotaphia 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is getting kind of absurd. It is a FACT that Emerson read and was influenced by the Vedas. I gave references where this can be looked up in historical scholarship. It is not an "interpretation" that Emerson's saying that parts and particles are fused in the "Over Soul" (his invention) was a reference to the Vedantic Paramatma. I can also give references to this as well. It seems you have an agenda to omit this fact, and I can't see why. Many people are interested in this cultural cross-over. None of this is interepretation of fact. This site leaves Emerson appearing intractably diaphanous, when in fact he can be understood in the context of his influences in his time. To conceal this information I think is extremely poor scholarship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cott12 (talk • contribs) .

Also I do not pretend to "interpret" the quote by Emerson. The allusion to monism is glaring. Anyone is free to interpret it as they wish. Here is a smaller exerpt from what I had on: "Meantime within man is the soul of the whole; the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related, the eternal ONE. (his own capitalization)" Emerson is one of the most prominent writers influenced by the Bhavadvagita. My source was again: In 1845, Emerson's Journal records that he was reading the Bhagavad Gita and Henry Thomas Colebrooke's Essays on the Vedas (Sachin N. Pradhan, India in the United States: Contribution of India and Indians in the United States of America, (Bethesda, MD: SP Press International, Inc., 1996), p 12. There is your scholarship. What is missing? It is not my POV that Emerson was drastically eastern influenced. To make a mere side-note of it is simply scholastic dishonesty -- not objective scholarship. 19:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "mak[ing] a mere side-note of it." Can you clarify? Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 19:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is.

I have a question as to this quote: "A common joke heard from his audiences was that they had no idea what he was saying, but that it was beautiful." What is the reference source for this statement? Certainly the wikipedian didn't interview Emerson's audience. Was wanting to know the source. If there is no source, then it is speculative. I have never heard this or read it. Emerson, it seems to me, spoke in the 'romantic era' tone of of time, in step with the other poets/ essayists of his time. This kind of flowery, nearly religious, rhetoric can even be found in the speeches and letters of Abraham Lincoln. I have never heard that Emerson stuck out as especially obstruse in his time. There is no understanding in this essay of the backdrop of his day and that German Idealism had peaked at that time. This was common oratory speech for his era. Who wrote the bulk of this essay anyway? We need a scholar badly. As is it is merely his life, with no understanding of the context other than naming names, dates, places, and siting publications. 21:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The monism evident in Emerson's later writings and works, which (though herein contended) is easily attributed to his Eastern influences, indeed puts the truth to Thoreau's private contention that he had drifted from original principles. In contrast to his assertion of the oneness of the soul in "Over Soul", note his original assertion in "Nature": "Therefore is Space, and therefore Time, that man may know that things are not huddled and lumped, but sundered and individual. ... A wise man shows his wisdom in separation, in gradation, and his scale of creatures and of merits is as wide as nature. The foolish have no range in their scale, but suppose that every man is as every other man." 209.214.230.142 23:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Eastern influences are important, together with Plotinus, etc. The current text:

Emerson was strongly influenced by his early reading of the French essayist Montaigne. From those compositions he took the conversational, subjective style and the loss of belief in a personal God. He never read Kant's works, but, instead, relied on Coleridge's interpretation of the German Transcendental Idealist. This led to Emerson's non-traditional ideas of soul and God.

is certainly a woefully inadequate statement of where Emerson's monist, "Oversoul," and other ideas took their inspiration from... Wareh 00:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

link

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

  • probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?

please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah? 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I looked at this site and it is badly written, has unclosed quotations (totally confusing), diffuse interpretations, and lacks citations.chris 21:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

The sentence-paragraph "Just how many children he had, is not easy to find, but he had at least one son and at least one daughter; with her, when he was already old, he traveled to Europe" is horribly formed, incoherent, and in need of revision.

Lydia Jackson

I was trying to view a page for the 1978 Miss Black America winner Lydia Jackson, but Emerson's wife also shares that name, so the link for Lydia Jackson redirects to here. Could we possibly have a disambiguation page?

Zendik 14:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Greatest?

The final words of the article claim that the collection of Emerson's essays is considered to be one of the 100 greatest books of all time. What is the authority behind this judgment?Lestrade 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

vandalised, plz check

As a book collector, to my knowledge this is true in 2 of such collections of the "100 Greatest Books of All Time Collections" done by 2 publishing companies, both the Franklin Library and the Easton Press. Hope this helps.

inconsistent age references

it says 1805 he was 10 years old but the birth date is 1803. it also says 1811 he was 18 but once again based on his birthday is said to be 1803. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.100.73 (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Grammar suggestions/Section regarding his death

This is my first posting.
The following sentences have parts that are unclear or confusing:
"Emerson toured Europe in Dreni 1832 and later wrote of his travels in English Traits (1856)."
"Carlyle and Emerson maintained contact a correspondence with Carlyle until the latter's death in 1881."

Dreni - not sure what that is. Could not find a reference on Wiki or Google. it appears to be unnecessary in the sentence.

Carlyle and Emerson... - Carlyle's name is mentioned twice - I am suggessting using "Carlyle and Emerson corresponded until the latter's death in 1881."

Also, a section regarding details regarding his death would be appropriate. What illness, where he died, who was present, etc...
Thanks.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Handyman69 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Could I ask a question?

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask a question, but I am curious: is there any relation between Dewey and the Emerson's Metaphysical Club? I ask it because in my schoolbook of philosophy there is a vague allusion about the influence of the Club in Dewey's thought. But my book is not apparent. Sorry if my English isn't perfect. Thank for your consideration, --79.8.122.170 00:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Named after Emerson

Ralph Waldo Ellison, the author of Invisible Man was apparently named after Emerson. This may be a good thing to add to the named after section24.40.140.38 23:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Emerson's father, who called his son "a rather dull, gay, scholar",

is this true? i think it may be more vandalizm though. Probably some school kids with some report on Emerson... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.205.118 (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly not true, as Emerson's father died when he was just a boy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkmc (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this correct?

Emerson's father, who called his son "a rather dull, gay, scholar",

is that statement correct? seems like some vandalizm to me, if anyone could confirm this that would be nice. If its vandalizm its probably some 13 year old kid doing a project on emerson or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.205.118 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

don't see how that's vandalism exactly. and emerson's father could easily not have meant "gay" to mean homosexual.. 66.32.189.249 (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly not true, as Emerson's father died when he was a young boy. In addition, the word "gay" did not have that meaning in the 19th century. --Kirkmc (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Two Questions

I am new to editing of Wiki but I am not new to Emerson. I am a grad student at Boston College and one of my areas of specialization is American philosophy. More specifically I focus on the complex and two way relationship between 19th century continental philosophy and American philosophy.

I am suggesting two changes one very minor.

The first (minor) is that there is evidence in both Emerson's journals and in the text: Harding, Walter, Emerson's Library, Univ. Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, 1967, that the following passage from the Emerson wiki:

He never read Kant's works, but, instead, relied on Coleridge's interpretation of the German

is not entirely factual. He did indeed get much of his influence from Coleridge (and others) but he also read Kant himself in German and in translation. According to the journal article: Wellek, Rene. "Emerson and German Philosophy." New England Quarterly 16.1 (1943): 41-62. Emerson owned his own copy of the Critique of Pure Reason.

The second change I am suggesting is more of an addition than a change in the current page. I would like to add--after hearing any suggestions or critique of the idea--a substantive section on the philosophy of Emerson. I am aware that there is another section devoted to transcendentalism but I believe this does not begin to encompass the diversity much less the progression of Emerson's philosophy. From his early essays such as Nature to his later works such The Conduct of Life-- which is clearly proto-pragmatism Emerson's philosophy changes quite dramatically. I am not putting forth only my own ideas. In fact most of what I would add would be a synthesis of other author's ideas (which I will duly note when used) such as Stanley Cavell, Louis Menand, Robert Richardson, Stanley Vogel, David Van Leer, and several others.

I am proposing four sub-sections.

  1. Overview
  2. Influences on his philosophy: Cousin, Coleridge, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, etc.
  3. progression over time of his philosophy
  4. His legacy: Nietzsche, James, Holmes, etc.

I would welcome any comment or critique prior to posting the edit

--Mbradyx (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for dropping a line. This page could definitely use some help. If you've got references, let's start building this up. I hope you'll stick around and make some of these changes yourself, and definitely use in-line citations (that's what this article strongly needs the most). I'm leaving you a "welcome" message on your talk page that should give you some useful links on how to get started. I can help too - just drop me a line on my talk page! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality?

Needs to be looked into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigboy (talk • contribs) 02:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That Quote about his sex driven poetry is from a book about Walt Whitman. Not Ralph Waldo Emerson Quote needs deleting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.89.241 (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean the info regarding poetry he wrote for a male student. It could have come from a book on anyone, so long as it is a reliable source. Do you think Kaplan's book does not qualify? If so, did you notice there are actually two sources that support it? Sorry, this is a difficult spot to challenge. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite his marriage

I'm afraid my English is not good enough to correct this without ruining the flow of the paragraph, but saying some body is bisexual "despite" being married is rather non-sensical, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.144 (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. Really, though, the section could use further discussion and, if possible, sources that refute his alleged bisexuality (it seems to me that it has been more controversial than the article makes it out to be). --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Improvement drive?

Anyone who watches Emerson's page willing to collaborate on a sustained improvement drive on this article to bring it to Good Article status? This is a big undertaking so I'd love some help. I recently brought Margaret Fuller up to Featured status and think this one deserves to get there (eventually) as well. Let me know here or on my talk page. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is keeping an eye on this page, I've been slowly but steadily making improvements, mostly making sure there are footnotes for all the facts, dates, and quotes. Help on organizing the article is welcome. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have this on my watchlist but don't check in much, and I literally just noticed the good work you've been doing to improve Emerson (and in perusing what you've been up to I saw the Poe Toaster...) It's a topic that interests me, but I'm afraid I can't be of much help as I don't have any decent books on Emerson. I can help glancing over your shoulder here and there... I'll think about structure too... --JayHenry (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as how I literally watchlisted this article yesterday, I'm willing to help out. :) I have access to my library's 175+ works that mention Emerson, not to mention databases, etc, so let me know if something in particular is needed. Great work so far! María (habla conmigo) 14:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for joining into the fray, folks. I have tagged the section on Lifestyle and beliefs as well as the one on Criticism and legacy as needing expansion. As I've been expanding the info on his role as an abolitionist, I already see a potential problem with the organization in that his abolitionism will, inevitably, be mentioned twice. My suggestion is we make sure the biography portion of the article focuses solely on the chronology of his burgeoning abolitionism while the beliefs portion gets to the nitty-gritty details. Of course, his religious views should be expanded like crazy here too (I'm not going to be the best for that). We may even want an influences discussion in its own section. If anyone also wants to peruse through the biography and let me know if there are any wide gaps that need to be filled (when I got here, it went from 1860s to his death without any mention of what happened in between!). Many thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it makes sense to only skim abolitionism, causes, etc. in the bio and then expand them in their own separate sections. I'm sure entire articles can be dedicated to Emerson's complex philosophies. What I'm most curious about is how to compose a literary legacy section, in which is many varied and complex works are described and somehow connected via theme, style or subject matter. Should it be split into poems and essays? Should important essays like "Self-Reliance" get their own subsection? My head hurts just thinking about it! María (habla conmigo) 16:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
His literary influence is one thing and his rhetorical/oratory influence is another entirely. I would argue that his literature (i.e. poems in particular) are not quite as important. I think the philosophies probably should even have heftier weight than the influence stuff. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific help requests

For those willing to help, I'm having a hard time trying to solidify his influence and lifestyle sections. In particular, if anyone can write up a thorough, well-cited section on his religious beliefs and reforms, that would be essential to the success of this article. I'm also inclined to remove any references from the book by Susan Cheever; if you're not familiar with it, it does not seem to pass the mustard as a reliable source and has been unanimously denounced by the Concord, Massachusetts community (they call it outright "fiction" in certain gift shops). --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Other things: I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the list of links under "See also" provide no context and are relatively useless to the article. If anyone can find a way to mention these links within the prose, that's probably a better way (and at least we can explain why each link is relevant). I think the "Further reading" section is equally unhelpful; there are so many books on Emerson, why are these represented here? If there is no opposition, I might just yank both of those sections. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lydia/Lidian

This article has had occasional back-and-forth editing regarding Emerson's second wife. For the purpose of this article, should she be referred to as "Lydia" or as "Lidian"? Her grave marker refers to her as Lidian but, as far as a I know, that was never a legal name change (if such a thing existed in those days). If anyone has any thoughts on this, jump in with your reasoning. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I would side with however she is referred to by a majority of the biographers/critics/etc. If she's widely accepted by the academic community as either "Lydia" or "Lidian", I would go with that one. Just my gut feeling, though, and not based in guideline or what-have-you. :) María (habla conmigo) 00:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Lydia had been a traditional name in the Jackson family of Plymouth (Lydia Emerson's family) for generations. Have always seen it written as "Lydia." [1] Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, the family history only explains how she got the name, not how she is traditionally referred in scholarship. Unfortunately, just about all the books on Emerson that I was using to clean up this article came from the library and have long since been returned. A couple books I do have on hand though: Brook Farm: The Dark Side of Utopia by Sterling F. Delano (2004) lists her solely as "Lidian Emerson"; The Transcendentalists by Barbara Packer (2007) refers to her in the index as "Emerson, Lydia Jackson (Lidian)" - not sure if that's helpful. I'll continue consulting published sources, as I think that's a good way to go (especially using the index at the back as a test). --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
My understanding, including from an interview by Brian Lamb several years ago on C-SPAN Booknotes with a Harvard scholar and Emerson expert, is that her name was Lydia, and that Emerson called her (as a nickname) Lydian. I called into the show and asked Lamb's guest specifically about Emerson's wife. I will look for a transcript online from the show. (Sadly, C-SPAN has since dropped the excellent booknotes show.)Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, obviously, Lidian wasn't her real name - the article makes that very clear. The question we have to answer is how should she be referred to for the purpose of this article? In order to tell her story, we have to use both names at some point. So, once we explain the name situation, which do we stick with? Or should we just go with "Mrs. Emerson" (which I've seen before on Wikipedia)? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Emerson referred to her as both Lydian and Queenie. I added the Queenie to the article, and some kind soul removed it, then asked for a reference. Interestingly, Richardson doesn't seem to mention this (at least it doesn't show up in a Google Books search of The Mind on Fire), but if you do a Google Books search for "emerson queenie" you'll find it in several of his journals. However, it's not clear if the spelling should be Lydian or Lidian; the latter seems more common, but the former shows plenty of hits in the journals, letters, etc. --Kirkmc (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

New External Link

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like someone to add the new scholarly resource http://www.ralphwaldoemersonethos.pbwiki.com/ "Ralph Waldo Emerson: Self-presentation in Works" to the External Links section of this Wikipedia page.

Clemenje (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)clemenje

Not sure it's useful; it looks like that link requires a log-in. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 Not done per above. Leujohn (talk) 12:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

comments

I recently added a short sentence referring to Emerson's views on mysticism via his essay on Emanuel Swedenborg in Representative Men. It has since been deleted and I wonder why. Perhaps the phrasing was wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dedecus (talk • contribs) 13:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for asking rather than taking it personally. Second, in the future, new comments on talk pages should go at the very bottom so that we can find them easily. Third, here's what you added:
His interest in mysticism, in fact, is best summarized in his essay on Emanuel Swedenborg in Representative Men. <ref>''Emerson on Swedenborg: introducing the Mystic'', Ed. [[Stephen McNeilly]], London: Swedenborg Society, 2003. ISBN: 978-0-85448-139-2</ref>
Here are the problems. The term "best summarized" is a violation of NPOV and OR policies. In other words, what you did was make a personal judgment, which we don't do here. The source you gave appears to be an anthology, rather than a scholar making the comment you provided. Really, you should never source directly to primary texts unless you are just quoting the author's words (and even then I usually don't, it's always better to use third-party sources). I hope that helps! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentally Retarded?

The first paragraph says Emerson was mentally retarded. This is clearly wrong. It may be in wrong reference to Robert Buckley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.188.1 (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it was just vandalism. Check page history if you ever see something suspicious like that. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect from "Emerson"

I recently made it so that "Emerson" redirected to this article (with a disambiguation link), as I believe this is clearly the main use of the word, however it now seems to have changed. What are other editor’s views on such a redirect? Midnightdreary, I am particularly interested in you view on this as I hold your opinion in high regard.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 13:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Red! I thought about it for a bit, and it does seem to make sense that "Emerson" lead to disambiguation of "Emerson." I recently was in Boston Common where a woman was calling for her puppy "Emerson." I asked if she named it after Ralph Waldo, and she said no - the college. So, that makes me realize that not everyone thinks the way I do! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead needs expansion

It doesn't summarize the article, and fails to make mention of key aspects of his life, such as the Divinity School Address speech. Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't quite finished yet; I'd say the lead is less important than, say, completing the article, including incorporating appropriate referencing throughout. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand your position, but ideally, the lead should grow along with the article in an organic, complementary way. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

gnostic-tinged religions -> removed Seventh-Day Adventism from list

While I've seen gnosticism-oriented quotes by Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism, regarding the possibility of humans to become gods as he thought Christ did become one instead of always being one, these kinds of doctrines where denounced by the founders of the Seventh-Day Adventist church. For this reason I removed Seventh-Day Adventism from the list of gnostic-tinged religions.

I'll be giving a few quotes to show that official Seventh-Day Adventism believed since it's beginnings in Christ's divinity and the impossibility for humanity to become gods. On the other hand they believed that Satan wanted humans to believe they could become as gods.

One of the founders and most read among Seventh-Day Adventists is Ellen White who quoted from the Bible "and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil" as a lie that Satan gave to humanity in Eden. The context can be seen in the book at the page referenced here: Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts Vol.3 (1864), p.40-41.

More quotes: "All men, women, and youth are appointed to do a certain work. But some stumble at the word of truth. It does not harmonize with their inclinations, and therefore they refuse to be doers of the word. They will not wear Christ's yoke of perfect obedience to the law of God. They look upon this yoke as a burden, and Satan tells them that if they will break away from it, they will become as gods. No one shall rule them or dictate to them; they will be able to do as they please, and have all the liberty they desire. True, they have been oppressed and cramped in every way in their religious life, but that religious life was a farce. They were appointed to be co-laborers with Jesus Christ, and yoking up with Christ was their only chance for perfect rest and freedom. Had they done this, they would never have been confounded." (Ellen White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p.462)

"There is too little confidence in the power which God stands ready to give. "We are laborers together with God." 1 Cor. 3:9. Immeasurably inferior is the part which the human agent sustains; but if he is linked with the divinity of Christ, he can do all things through the strength that Christ imparts." (Ellen White, Christ's Object Lessons, p.82)

"Jesus declared, "I am the resurrection, and the life." In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life." (Ellen White, The Desire of Ages, p.530) Crizztian (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Really, is all this necessary? You are providing original research when all you had to do was remove the questionable material, note that it was questionable, and remind everyone that it was unsourced anyway. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I like doing things once and for all. Besides this was my first edit and I wanted to be sure I had done it properly and giving proof of my actions. By the way, thank you for your reply. I took it into consideration for my next edits. Crizztian (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Named after Emerson

I think this is worth discussing and, hopefully, reaching consensus on. Do we need a massive list of schools and other organizations named after Emerson here? I understand fully that it's part of his legacy, but I don't feel it adds much to understanding why he's an important figure - and I feel that's more important than an laundry list which will never conceivably be complete. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, before I added this section back I first consulted with a very experienced Wikipedia contributor and reviewer and asked his opinion about Emerson in particular. His thoughts were "It is customary, I think, to list places, institutions, etc. which have been named in a person's honor in a "legacy" section. I see nothing wrong with this, and disagree that such a list would not be "encyclopedic"... particularly if the subjects listed had Wikipedia articles of their own." Of course, consensus should be reached. If the section is really not wanted then it should not remain.--Rschwalb —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

I'm not using the term "encyclopedic" here but I do think we should talk about the value added with a section like this. Personally I find it as useful as an "Emerson in popular culture" section - trivial. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Obligatory allegation

"There is evidence suggesting that Emerson may have been bisexual." It just wouldn't be a Wikipedia biographical article without the usual attribution of inversion. In the world of Wikipedia, every notable or famous person is said to have exhibited, as an adult, such juvenile and adolescent behavior.Lestrade (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

The material is cited. I am sorry that you have issues accepting variation in human sexual behavior. — goethean ॐ 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a fairly common part of discussions of Emerson. It's definitely not a fringe theory among Emersonians. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Circles?

Where is Circles?? 74.85.71.13 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where "Circles" was collected or if it's also known by a different name. Either way, I don't think this page is trying for completism with his list of essays, etc. - the better place to get it all included is the Wikisource page. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The year Emerson's first wife died

This article sais it was 1831, but Robert D. Richardson Jr. (Emerson - The mind on fire, 1995, page 3) sais it was 1832. Link to googlebooks: http://books.google.com/books?id=0CtJTN7jW7wC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fi#v=onepage&q=&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by EerikM (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It actually doesn't say that at all. The page you're referring to says that Emerson visited his wife's grave in March 1832, noting it had been about a year and two months after she died. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Channing?

In the paragraph describing The Dial, it stands: "utilizing the journal to promote talented young writers including William Ellery Channing and Thoreau". This can't be correct, since W.E. Channing was Emerson's senior, and died in 1842. Perhaps another Channing was meant, either William Henry Channing or Ellery Channing? Grgisler (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I've fixed the link to the poet Ellery Channing. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I corrected the name: it is indeed William Ellery Channing, sometimes listed as "the younger".--Kirkmc (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

New Thought

I've removed a sentence in the first paragraph saying that Emerson's teachings directly inspired the New Thought movement. While this may be true, it's certainly not the correct location for it. There should be a section regarding the influence of Emerson, which would be quite broad (from Whitman to Ellison, passing through William James, and many others. But the first paragraph is meant to be an introduction to a person, not to the potential influence of his work.--Kirkmc (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert

This revert of my edit makes the intro longer and less readable without adding any important material. It's good to have the original sources of these essays in the article, but it is not necessary to the intro. Additionally, one should supply an edit summary when reverting except in cases of clear vandalism. — goethean ॐ 21:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's useful to have them there, especially because they really don't show up clearly below. This said, as you can probably see, I'm going through the entire article and adding a lot of stuff from my personal research, so I'd agree if you wanted to remove them and put them elsewhere; or I can add them later when I get to that part of the article. As to edit summaries, sorry; I'm somewhat new to this. Do you mean, then, that I should specify the rationale for each change I make?--Kirkmc (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean, then, that I should specify the rationale for each change I make?
Yes, briefly. Tends to cut down on confusion and misunderstandings. — goethean ॐ 23:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

References to Susan Cheever's book American Bloomsbury

There are a number of references to Susan Cheever's American Bloomsbury in this article. This book is notorious for being wrong about many things: simple things such as dates, and deeper things about interpretations of what the different people involved in this period did and why. (Some comments can be seen in the many negative reviews on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/American-Bloomsbury-Margaret-Nathaniel-Hawthorne/dp/0743264622). I'd personally like to remove the references to this book from the article, because it is, simply, not a good book. I'm studying Emerson pretty deeply right now, and, as I progress, I'm making changes to the article as needed (and filling it out some). I don't know the protocol here - I'm new to Wikipedia - but is anyone especially concerned about this book's references being replaced with more serious references (in most cases, Richardson is the standard bio of Emerson, but there are a number of other books that are reliable.)--Kirkmc (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed some bottom-of-the-page categories

I've removed several of the categories listed at the bottom of the page. Emerson was not LGBT; there is only evidence of his writing a few poems about one of his fellow students, and nothing later in his life. He was not a pantheist or a "panentheist" whatever that was; more like a deist, if one wants to split hairs. And he certainly was not a nature writer. His essay Nature is philosophical, and he never did the type of nature writing that, say, Thoreau did.--Kirkmc (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say, generally speaking, fewer categories are more useful than many. If the inclusion of a particular category is not supported in the text of the article, I'd say that category is not helpful anyway. Good work. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

quote

"Trust men and they will be true to you: treat them greatly and they will show themselves great." Ralph Waldo Emerson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.184.26 (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection

This article seems to get vandalised a lot. Should we request semi-protection or pending changes? Gregcaletta (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection off and on for this page. A high-profile figure like Emerson is obviously going to be a target for vandalism, but it tends to be only in short bursts here (probably once they've moved on in their syllabus). The good news is that this article is watched by a good number of editors so vandalism is quickly fixed. But, if you feel it's necessary, feel free to request semi-protection. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I;m thankfully it's being watched so carefully. If they don't have a problem with doing that then I want bother with protection. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got this page in my watchlist, and I have an RSS feed for the watchlist, but changes rarely show up in the RSS feed. If they did, I could keep a closer eye on the page. Does anyone know why the RSS feed doesn't work well? Kirkmc (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Poetry

There is so little on Emerson's poetry in this article; it's a great pity.

smilesofasummernight Smilesofasummernight (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Find a reliable source discussing his poetry and add something. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Visit to Salt Lake City

I may add this info pending further discussion and research:

Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Good out of evil. One must thank the genius of Brigham Young for the creation of Salt Lake City — an inestimable hospitality to the Overland Emigrants, and an efficient example to all men in the vast desert, teaching how to subdue and turn it to a habitable garden.”


On 18 April 1871 Emerson , in his sixty-eighth year, arrived in Salt. Lake City via the railroad

DAB (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just make sure you cite properly using reliable sources. And use the correct date format too. I think the biographical note that he went to Salt Lake City is more important than the quote, unless some of your sources go into further detail about it as something of relevance. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Salt Lake City is confirmed in von Frank's Chronology of Ralph Waldo Emerson, which refers to JMN 16:408. He met with Brigham Young on the 19th. And on the 17th, he noted in his journal that he weighed 140.5 lbs. Kirkmc (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Death

Emerson did not die from walking in the rain. Pneumonia is not caused by walking in the rain. (See http://www.webmd.com/lung/bacterial-pneumonia.) While contemporary accounts may have attributed his death to walking in the rain, it should not be cited as fact on Wikipedia considering current understandings of medicine (which can be researched on Wikipedia). For examples of how to explain contemporary lore while also remaining true to medical fact see the Wikipedia pages of William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levingesundheit (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

influences

emerson considered himself as the resurrection of the persian poet sa'di he was heavily influenced by persian poetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.5.140 (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph removed from Unitarian article

As follows:

Ralph Waldo Emerson graduated in the middle of his class.h he was 159 of 308. In speaking with his educators nothing would have ever indicated he was a great thinker, he was an absolutely average student.[citation needed] He taught school for a while then attended Harvard Divinity School. In 1829 he was a Unitarian preacher then resigned in 1832. In 1836 he published his first Transcendentalist treaty and began a Transcendentalist luminary club with Henry Oliver Wood and others. Unitarianism found a strong footing in America after Unitarianism was elected as the educational focus and aim of Harvard Divinity School.

Ref given is Tarango, Angela PhD. "Unitarians." Trinity University. San Antonio. 16 Feb. 2011. But... doesn't seem to be supported by other sources. Someone please check. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That citation is the articles about Harvard Divinity School too. Cannot find it in any index. Seems bogus. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Philosopher vs. Sage

I think it's worth discussing here. I think we can all agree that Emerson is referred to as both sage and philosopher in many sources. A recent edit summary that turned "philosopher" into "sage" explained, "not often described as a 'philosopher' by reliable sources and this is even explicitly negated by some such as Bloom. 'Sage' is not disputed anywhere to my knowledge but it's sage or nothing". This is an unfair ultimatum ("sage or nothing") that seems to attempt a circumvent of the consensus process. A quick Google search for "Emerson philosopher" will draw several results. Google books produced at least three books with titles along the lines of "Emerson as Philosopher", etc. (including one by Bronson Alcott) on the first page alone. Whether he considered it (or we consider it) an occupation or not, it seems that he created philosophy, so the moniker fits. "Sage", on the other hand, is defined as "a wise man" - if we draw that conclusion, we are not following the policy on neutral point of view by making a final judgment on his level of wisdom. If "sage" is how people often refer to him, that is an opinion, not a definition. With that said, if the terms are so difficult, I propose keeping "philosopher" in the lede, and allowing for some discussion in the "beliefs" or perhaps "legacy" section describing modern scholars (Buell, Bloom, et al) who have attempted to revive the "sage" nickname as a definition of the man. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree that "sage" is an appreciation, not a definitive descriptive title. But regarding "philosopher," Emerson never considered himself to be one. While one may, in retrospect, say that he was, this is not borne out by reading his work. There is no overarching plan, and he wrote no long treatises about any subject that could be thought to be philosophical. Emerson considered himself a "poet," and a lecturer, but certainly not a philosopher. (Though he considered himself to be a preacher in his early career.) Nevertheless, I would say that "philosopher" is a much better word than "sage," though I tend to prefer simply calling him a "thinker" and "lecturer." Kirkmc (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. "Sage" is inappropriate here. As a descriptive word, it has a strong POV tone. The aforementioned editor also imagined Emerson might find the word "philosopher" insulting. I wonder what Aristotle thought of that. - Artoasis (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I agree that "public speaker" is a bad word choice; lecturer or, really, "public lecturer" is my recommendation. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
"Philosopher" is not used by many and disputed by others, so it is an opinion. Harold Bloom considers "sage" to be an accurate descriptive title, but if we others would dispute it making it too an opinion, then the fair compromise is to use neither. I agree that "sage or nothing" was a poor choice of words on my point; it sounds WP:UNCIVIL. What I mean was that if we think both "philosopher" and "sage" are opinions then we should just leave both out because "Public speaker, essayist and poet" or "Public speaker, essayist and poet" are fine on their own. I prefer "public speaker" because it is more broad and more accurate based on modern day equivalents; "lecturer" implies a very specific subject and only at universities, often at only one university. But that's no big deal. I think "thinker", "philosopher" and "sage" should all be left out if we think "sage" is too complimentary. "Thinker" is fairly facile and redundant. Gregcaletta (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that "thinker" is fairly meaningless. But I still question the assertion that "philosopher" is not used by many in reference to Emerson. The WP:GOOGLETEST alone seems to disprove that. Bloom is not a final authority on this; if there is an attempt to remove "philosopher" as a descriptor of Emerson (which seems to have been used well before Wikipedia), many people have to support it to avoid WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. Could anyone provide a quote with ref that Emerson did not consider himself a philosopher? For now, could we also find a quote from Bloom that says the "philosopher" title is inappropriate? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The point is there is enough doubt about whether the term "philosopher" is accurate that it is an opinion, in the same way that some believe "sage" is an opinion, so we don't state it as fact. Does anyone have any serious objection to just saying "lecturer, essayist and poet"? and leaving out "philosopher", "sage" and "thinker" altogether? I think that is the best compromise and the best way to achieve consensus on this. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I do not agree. As I said before, I do not see enough evidence that the term "philosopher" is controversial. So far, only one source has been alluded to and, as I noted, relying on one source which disagrees with scores of others is WP:FRINGE or, perhaps, WP:UNDUE. For now, I support the addition of prose to either the section on legacy or beliefs. For the lede, I'm happy with the use of "philosopher". --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Well if there is no academic consensus on whether he is a philosopher, it is WP:UNDUE to state is as fact. What problem do you have with just saying "lecturer, essayist and poet"? Gregcaletta (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a lack of academic consensus; I see one person splitting hairs about semantics. I hate asking you to prove a negative, but I've already noted that "Emerson as philosopher" passes the Google test, with references as far back as Bronson Alcott's book shortly after Emerson's death. In other words, I see "philosopher" as more than commonly used. Emerson has a big listing in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc. I spent some time doing some Google book searches and found "Emerson was not a philosopher" only in reference to Bloom. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Proving a negative is the problem here, but it should be enough that the number of significant descriptions where the word "philosopher" is absent is higher still than the number where it is present. Simply leaving the word "philosopher" out is not the same as claiming in the article that he is not a philosopher; even if we did mention the claim, it would not be a violation of WP:UNDUE because the dispute is clearly not a "fringe theory". Lewis Leary disputed it directly: "Revelation rather than logic was the instrument used by Emerson to delve toward truth. It was not his intention to create a philosophy or to codify thought. He distrusted logical arguments as man-made, and therefore inadequate because they are imperfect as man is imperfect. Neither philosopher nor conventional moralist, Emerson, it cannot be said too often, was first and last an artist who attempted to create a vision of the world and man's place in it." John Dewey acknowledged that he is not consistently believed a philosopher without taking sides: "It is said that Emerson is not a philosopher. I find this denotation false or true according as it is said in blame or praise". And at least two editors here have said they find the term "philosopher" inaccurate, so I will appreciate it if you make an effort to achieve consensus. What problem do you have with just saying "lecturer, essayist and poet"? Gregcaletta (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, 'without taking sides'?! So you have no idea what Dewey is saying here, it seems. (although I find your sentence ambiguous.) Dewey meant that those who say he's not a philosopher in the negative, critical sense "less than a philosopher" are wrong. And those who say he is not a philosopher, as in greater than a mere 'philosopher' (i.e. philosophy professor), that he is so much more, and rises above that field of pedantry and party squabbles, are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesenadam (talk • contribs) 00:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have put a request on the talk page of WikiProject Philosophy. Hopefully more editors will participate in this discussion and eventually reach a consensus. Cheers. - Artoasis (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just came here from WT:PHIL. I agree with the consensus about the bias of "sage" and the vacuousness of "thinker". As far as "philosopher", I have no strong objection to its exclusion (remaining silent on an issue is always neutral), but I don't know for certain that it needs to be excluded (i.e. its inclusion may be acceptable). I would not immediately think of him as a "philosopher" in the sense of the kind of people discussed in contemporary philosophy classes. However, the existence of an article on him at SEP might seem to suggest otherwise. (On the other hand, SEP also has an article on Ayn Rand, who is of dubious qualification as a philosopher; though apparently wikipedia currently describes her as such).
I notice the SEP article refers to him as a "popular philosopher"; while that may simply mean that he is a philosopher who is well-known and well-liked, I get the feeling that they mean that more along the lines of "pop music", or "folk etymology": He is a "philosopher" in the sense that he did something laypeople would call philosophical, but without being a part of the greater (though perhaps narrower?) academic endeavor now named by the word "philosophy". Consider if I today published a book on philosophy in a private press but not in any academic journals (like Ayn Rand again), and that book became a best-seller; would that qualify me uncontroversially as a "philosopher"? Anyway, my point here is: maybe calling him a "popular philosopher" or the like might be a good compromise on this issue? --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The second sentence of the intro reads:
Emerson gradually moved away from the religious and social beliefs of his contemporaries, formulating and expressing the philosophy of Transcendentalism in his 1836 essay, Nature.
The article is listed under the catrgories 19th century philosophers and American philosophers. The (philosopher) infobox reads:
Era: 19th century philosophy
Region: Western Philosophy
School: Transcendentalism
It appears that those who want to exclude Emerson from philosophy have some work to do. — goethean ॐ 21:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the fact that the word "philosophy" is used elsewhere in the article already is another good reason to remove the assertion that he is a philosopher. To simply describe him as a "lecturer, essayist and poet" is to not deny that he is a philosopher and it certainly is not to remove him from philosophy; it is simply to avoid unnecessary controversy or wordiness. Gregcaletta (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Emerson never considered himself a philosopher, but a poet and lecturer. Better to under-describe than over-describe. (And while I agree with Bloom that he was a "sage," I also feel that a neutral article should not say that. Kirkmc (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

American Philosophy perspective

So I added this reference, that American Philosophy: An Encyclopedia classes him as one of several figures who "took a more pantheist or pandeist approach by rejecting views of God as separate from the world."<ref>{{Cite book |title = American Philosophy: An Encyclopedia |author = [[John Lachs]] and [[Robert Talisse]] |year = 2007 |ISBN = 0415939267 |page = 310}}</ref> and see it was taken out. I think recognized sources give various interpretations of Emerson's philosophical bent, so describe them generally and leave it up to the reader to sort from the views.

Previously someone else had added a reference: Swami Vivekananda states that, “If you want to know the source of Emerson's inspiration, it is this book, the Gita. He went to see Carlyle, and Carlyle made him a present of the Gita; and that little book is responsible for the Concord Movement. All the broad movements in America, in one way or other, are indebted to the Concord party”<ref>[http://www.advaitaashrama.org/cw/volume_4/lectures_and_discourses/the_mahabharata.htm Swami Vivekananda about Concord party]</ref> - and I don't know whether this is the truth but explore it, and if it is so, include it too. Torquemama007 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the editor who removed the American Philosophy: An Encyclopedia material you added did not leave an edit summary. Such a summary really is a requirement; it beats guessing by quite a bit. I have three suggestions:
1. a Wikipedia article is not the place to explore material; content should be discussed in the article talk page
2. in general, when an edit is reverted, the content of the reverted edit should be discussed in the article talk page, not immediately restored (even if to a different location in the article). The Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle is a useful essay
3. in some cases, inserting new material requires additional editing for fit and flow. - Neonorange (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
So I dig that, but since it was removed anonymously sans explanation, it seemed like that could just be vandalism. Still, I do realize the line didn't fit as well with the flow where I first put it, which is why I put is somewhere where it fits better the second time. I'm not looking to explore material, just to add info from a good source. It should be mentioned, also, if a good source says Emerson was influenced by the Bhagavad Gita. The source that was there before doesn't look too good, but I googled a bit and it looks like he (Emerson) definitely described himself as being influenced by that philosophy, so it's worth looking in to. Torquemama007 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda about Emerson's inspiration

We mention that, Emerson was strongly influenced by the Vedas.

But Swami Vivekananda states that, “If you want to know the source of Emerson's inspiration, it is this book, the Gita. He went to see Carlyle, and Carlyle made him a present of the Gita; and that little book is responsible for the Concord Movement. All the broad movements in America, in one way or other, are indebted to the Concord party”

Reference: http://www.advaitaashrama.org/cw/volume_4/lectures_and_discourses/the_mahabharata.htm

& Vedas are different from Gita. we need to add more points about his inspiration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzhali.india (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a terminological point. "Vedas" properly includes Vedantic texts, and in a sense, the BG. But often "Vedas" is used in the much more restricted sense of "the Samhitas". This is clearly not what is intended here, and I propose changing "Vedas" to "Vedanta" to make clear what part of "the Vedas" he was influenced by. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

WeRelate

A record for this person has been created in the WeRelate genealogical website. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Trying hard to hide his main focus on Indian/Hindu Philosophy

Using word like Mysticism, western philosophy (this word itself is fake/concocted and used mainly to keep Indian Philosophy away from main-stream), Emmerson was mainly interested in Hindu/Vedantic philosophy but his region (what is it) is mentioned as western philosophy. But how long you can keep doing it? You need to destroy everything that Emmerson ever said to hide this forever, otherwise things will settle themselves in right perspective sooner or later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.193.4.107 (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


Photo is inverted

The lead image of Emerson in the article is a mirror image of the source photograph. I can verify.Cdg1072 (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ralph Waldo Emerson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with The Rhodora

This article is very small and would be better off being a section within the Ralph Waldo Emerson article Ntb613 (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me to throw this into the Emerson article. Where would it go? Either keep it separate, kill it entirely, or fit it into some other article, say one about Emerson's poetry generically (though I'm not a big fan of that solution). Thmazing (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I concur, it should not be merged here. However mainly it needs expanding, I think it belongs as an article in its own right. LaurentianShield (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

I'm not sure what the rules are, but this text:

Emerson had erotic thoughts about another man, Martin Gay. During his early years at Harvard, Emerson found himself attracted to the young freshman, about whom he wrote sexually charged poetry.

is copied verbatim from this blog post:

http://gayinfluence.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/ralph-waldo-emersons-man-crush.html

Kirkmc (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. The blog sentence you quote is not identical to the Wikipedia passage, but is an unattributed close paraphrase of this article, which has contained the passage in similar form, and in the same section, since September 22, 2008. Notice also that the Wikipedia passage is footnoted and the blog passage is not. Wikipedia articles are often quoted or closely paraphrased without attribution, so it is always necessary to check priority before jumping to conclusions. So, yes, there are rules—verify. — Neonorange (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

"nearly every generation"

the article says "Emerson's work has influenced nearly every generation of thinker, writer and poet since his time."

why "nearly"? do we know of one which hasn't been influenced? ;P beej (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So much praise, but reading just a few paragraphs actually written by the man should be enough to plant the doubt in anyones head whether this Emerson was an idiot. Kotika98 (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ralph Waldo Emerson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Emerson in the Adirondacks

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia and any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Emerson was a member of the Saturday Club at the Boston Parker House Hotel and in the summer of 1858 10 of them, including Emerson, journeyed into the Adirondacks at Follensebee Pond. Emerson's poem "Adriondac" resulted from this trip. These were 10 of the most influential intellectuals of their time. This event was a landmark in the 19th century intellectual movement, linking nature with art and literature.

I feel that a short history of this event would be a valuable addition to this page.

I am going to proceed to add this material to the page following the guidelines from Wikipedia and would like any feedback or help in improving it. RonaldMPrior (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Deeply scarred left cheek

Hi. I looked in Google and could find no evidence of Emerson having a facial scar. What is on his cheek in this photo? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Now I see, the shadow of his whiskers. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Citing Ralph Waldo Emerson "Self-Reliance" in Harvard Classics, Vol.5 which pre-dates URLs and ISBNs

My current reference to Ralph Waldo Emerson's original essay on "Self-Reliance" needs help because it does not fit the template for book citations. My 5th edition in Harvard Classics pre-dates ISBN numbers and URL links.Mitzi.humphrey 15:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

What's in a name?

It always amazes me when the re-writing and re-re-writing extends to the point no sense and nonsense has entered. There is in the text

On January 24, 1835, Emerson wrote a letter to Lidian Jackson proposing marriage.

then

Emerson quickly changed his wife's name to Lidian, ...

Huh?

Of course, this is matched by that other article mentioning her birth name of 'Lydia' not at all in the lede nor in the infobox. Stranger and stranger here as time marches onward, tromping over the text... Shenme (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Did he graduate from Harvard Divinity/Theological School?

I can't find any specific indication that Emerson actually graudated from what I think was then called the Theological School. In this (possibly self-published) source: [2] it is written: "He managed to attend some of the lectures at the Divinity School, and made a show of keeping along with his class. But he afterward declared that if the authorities had examined him on his studies they would not have passed him. They did not examine him, and he was "approbated to preach" by the Middlesex Association of Ministers in October, 1826, and on the fifteenth of that month delivered his first public sermon at Waltham." Sounds like he did not graduate with a divinity degree. Any other sources for this? Attic Salt (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Ralph_Waldo_Emerson/Archive_1"